SH. SUNIL JINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against order dated 23.12.2016 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Karnal {CIT(A)} and pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, during the year under consideration, was drawing income from salary and income from house property. A search was conducted on 09/05/2012 at the business premises of M/s SRS Group and as part of the said search, the residence as well as the business premises of the assessee were also searched. During the course of search and seizure operation, jewellery of Rs. 1,99,59,580/- was recovered from the residential premises of the assessee out of which the assessee could not provide any documentary evidences to the tune of Rs. 49,22,732/-. Similarly, cash of Rs. 16,01,100/- was also found at the residential premises of the assessee. Apart from this during the course of search at the residence of Promoters of SRS Group some messages were retrieved from the mobile of the assessee which showed that he was transacting in chit fund. Subsequently, the assessee was required to file his return of income. The return was filed declaring total income of Rs. 8,30,040/- Subsequently, the assessment was completed after making addition of Rs. 33,25,473/- in respect of unaccounted jewellery, an addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- in respect of unexplained cash found and a further addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed investment in chit fund.

Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal.

Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of his appeal by raising the following grounds of appeal:

The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the jewellery addition by alleging that the assessee had not given any evidences. It was submitted that the evidences were submitted in form of voluminous documents and, therefore, this allegation was not correct. It was also submitted that the working of relief which has been given by the Ld. CIT(A) is also not apparent from the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

Per contra, the Ld. CIT DR, while supporting the order of the authorities below, argued at length that as far as the issue of jewellery was concerned, the invoices of purchase were not submitted before the A.O. With respect to the unaccounted cash found, it was the argument of the Ld. CITDR that since the assessee was not maintaining any books of account, the benefit of bank withdrawals could not be given to the assessee. With respect to the alleged unexplained investment in chit fund, the Ld. CIT DR submitted that the case of Shri Vikas Gupta cannot be the basis for deleting the addition in the case of the assessee in as much as the two cases were not identical and were on different footings. It was prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld.

Having heard both the parties and having gone through the records, it is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has simply followed the findings of the A.O. on all the three issues. Although, he has given some relief to the assessee in respect of the jewellery found, the Ld. AR has rightly brought to our notice that this working is nowhere discernible from the impugned order. Then it is the assessee’s submission that voluminous documents had been filed in support of jewellery purchase whereas it is the contention of the Ld. CIT DR that invoices were not filed before the A.O. Similarly, with respect to the addition pertaining to cash found during the course of search, the assessee has not been able to suitably explain before the lower authorities as to how such cash was related to the withdrawals made earlier. It is also a fact on record that the assessee does not have any books of accounts. Therefore, the issue would require a correlation by drawing up cash flow statement which at this juncture has not been done. Similarly, the issue of alleged investment in chit fund, is although apparently, based on the details of call record as reproduced in the assessment order, the same seems to be based on surmises and conjectures as apart from such call records no evidence was there with the department. Accordingly, on an overall view of the facts of the case and keeping in mind that the interest of substantial justice should be served, we deem it fit to restore all the three issues to the file of the A.O. for being examined afresh after giving proper opportunity to the assesse to present its case.

In the final result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.